Trueness and precision of 5 intraoral scanners in the impressions of single and multiple implants: a comparative in vitro study

Comparison between stereophotogrammetric, digital, and conventional impression techniques in implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses: An in vitro study

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Conventional impressions and digital intraoral scanning for implant-supported fixed complete arch prostheses still have many problems that influence accuracy. Although stereophotogrammetry may offer a reliable alternative to other techniques, it has seldom been investigated.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to measure and compare the intraoral scan body deviations of the reference cast with the intraoral scan body distortions obtained by conventional, digital, and stereophotogrammetric techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous maxillary "all-on-four" cast was prepared with 2 straight and two 17-degree angled screw-retained abutments screwed on the implant. Three capture techniques were compared: the conventional impression technique (CI group) using impression plaster (IP), the digital intraoral scanning (DIS group) technique, and the stereophotogrammetry (SPG group) technique. A calibrated extraoral scanner was used to digitize the definitive cast to compare its intraoral scan body positions with those of the other techniques in terms of global angular distortion and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface alone by using an inspection and metrology software program and the best fit alignment technique. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests showed normal distribution of the quantitative variables. Thus, the repeated measures analyses of variance followed by univariate analysis and Bonferroni multiple comparison tests were performed to analyze the data (α=.05).

RESULTS

Significant global angular discrepancies and 3D deviations of the whole scan body and flat angled surface were found among the CI, DI, and SPG groups for both trueness (P<.001) and precision (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The stereophotogrammetry capture technique reported the highest accuracy in terms of trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies of all the techniques evaluated. However, at the flat angled surface region of the scan body, higher trueness was detected with the digital technique. Conventional impressions showed better trueness results than the digital ones, but the opposite was true of precision.

A guide for maximizing the accuracy of intraoral digital scans. Part 1: Operator factors

OBJECTIVES

To describe the factors related to the operator skills and decisions that influence the scanning accuracy of intraoral scanners (IOSs). A new classification for these factors is proposed to facilitate dental professionals' decision making when using IOSs and maximize the accuracy and reliability of intraoral digital scans.

OVERVIEW

Each IOS system is limited by the hardware and software characteristics of the selected device. The operator decisions that can influence the accuracy of IOSs include the scanning technology and system selection, scanning head size, calibration, scanning distance, exposure of the IOS to ambient temperature changes, ambient humidity, ambient lighting conditions, operator experience, scanning pattern, extension of the scan, cutting off, rescanning, and overlapping procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge and understanding of the operator factors that impact scanning accuracy of IOSs is a fundamental element for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs and for successfully integrating IOSs in daily practices.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Operator skills and clinical decisions significantly impact intraoral scanning accuracy. Dental professionals must know and understand these influencing operator factors for maximizing the accuracy of IOSs.

Intraoral scanning of the edentulous jaw without additional markers: An in vivo validation study on scanning precision and registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography scan

Purpose

A fully digital approach to oral prosthodontic rehabilitation requires the possibility of combining (i.e., registering) digital documentation from different sources. This becomes more complex in an edentulous jaw, as fixed dental markers to perform reliable registration are lacking. This validation study aimed to evaluate the reproducibility of 1) intraoral scanning and 2) soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan for a fully edentulous upper jaw.

Materials and Methods

Two observers independently performed intraoral scans of the upper jaw in 14 fully edentulous patients. The palatal vault of both surface models was aligned, and the inter-observer variability was assessed by calculating the mean inter-surface distance at the level of the alveolar crest. Additionally, a CBCT scan of all patients was obtained and a soft tissue surface model was generated using patient-specific gray values. This CBCT soft tissue model was registered with the intraoral scans of both observers, and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to evaluate the reproducibility of the registration method.

Results

The mean inter-observer deviation when performing an intraoral scan of the fully edentulous upper jaw was 0.10 ± 0.09 mm. The inter-observer agreement for the soft tissue-based registration method was excellent (ICC=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.98).

Conclusion

Even when teeth are lacking, intraoral scanning of the jaw and soft tissue-based registration of an intraoral scan with a CBCT scan can be performed with a high degree of precision.

Accuracy of 14 intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept: a comparative in vitro study

PURPOSE

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of 14 different intraoral scanners for the All-on-4 treatment concept.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four implants were placed in regions 13, 16, 23, and 26 of an edentulous maxillary model that was poured with scannable Type 4 gypsum to imitate the All-on-4 concept. The cast was scanned 10 times for each of 14 intraoral scanners (Primescan, iTero 2, iTero 5D, Virtuo Vivo, Trios 3, Trios 4, CS3600, CS3700, Emerald, Emerald S, Medit i500, BenQ BIS-I, Heron IOS, and Aadva IOS 100P) after the polyether ether ketone scanbody was placed. For the control group, the gypsum model was scanned 10 times with an industrial scanner. The first of the 10 virtual models obtained from the industrial model was chosen as the reference model. For trueness, the data of the 14 dental scanners were superimposed with the reference model; for precision, the data of all 14 scanners were superimposed within the groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Shapiro-Wilks, and Dunn's tests.

RESULTS

Primescan showed the highest trueness and precision values (P < .005), followed by the iTero 5D scanner (P < .005).

CONCLUSION

Some of these digital scanners can be used to make impressions within the All-on-4 concept. However, the possibility of data loss due to artifacts, reflections, and the inability to combine the data should be considered.

Influence of the surface humidity, implant angulation, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans

OBJECTIVES

To assess the influence of implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance on the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans.

METHODS

A definitive cast with 4 parallel implant abutment analogs (P group), and another cast with 4 angulated (up to 30 degrees) implant abutment analogs (NP group) were digitized by using a scanner (7Series) (reference scans). Two subgroups were created: dry (D subgroup) and wet (W subgroup). For the D subgroup, the casts were digitized without altering the surface humidity by using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 3). For the W subgroup, the cast surface was humidified with artificial saliva and digitized by using the same IOS. The interimplant distance discrepancies were assessed by computing linear and angular measurements. Trueness data was analyzed using 3-way ANOVA followed by the pairwise comparison Tukey tests. The Bartlett test, followed by the pairwise comparison tests, was used to assess the precision (α=.05).

RESULTS

Regarding the trueness, implant angulation (P<.001) and inter-implant distance measurement (P<.001) influenced the linear discrepancies. Implant angulation (P=.002), humidity conditions (P<.001), and inter-implant distance (P=.001) influenced the angular discrepancies. Regarding the precision, significant differences in the variance of linear and angular measurements and inter-implant distances were found. Humidity conditions (P<.001) influenced the scanning time.

CONCLUSIONS

Implant angulation, humidity, and interimplant distance influenced the accuracy and scanning time of complete-arch implant scans. Parallel implants resulted in higher trueness and precision values. Dry conditions resulted in slightly higher scanning trueness and precision and shorter scanning time.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Drying the surface being scanned increases intraoral scanning accuracy and decreases intraoral scanning time.

In vitro scan accuracy and time efficiency in various implant-supported fixed partial denture situations

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy and time efficiency of different digital workflows in 3 implant-supported fixed partial denture situations.

METHODS

Three partially edentulous maxillary models with 2 implants (Model 1: implants at lateral incisor sites; Model 2: implants at right canine and first molar sites; Model 3: implants at right first premolar and first molar sites) were digitized (ATOS Capsule 200MV120, n=1) for reference scans. Test scans were performed for direct (Primescan (DDW-P) and Trios 3 (DDW-T)) and indirect (IDW) digital workflows (n=14). For IDW, stone casts (type IV) were obtained from vinylsiloxanether impressions and digitized (S600 Arti). The scan/impression and post processing times were recorded. Reference and test scans were superimposed (GOM Inspect) to calculate 3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for trueness and precision analyses (α=.05).

RESULTS

Tested workflows affected trueness (P≤.030) and precision (P<.001) of scans (3D point, inter-implant distance, and angular deviations) within models. DDW-P had the highest accuracy (3D point deviations) for models 1 and 3 (P≤.046). IDW had the lowest accuracy for model 2 (P<.01). DDW-P had the highest accuracy (inter-implant distance deviations) for model 3 (P≤.048). Direct digital workflow mostly led to lower angular deviations (P≤.040), and higher precision for models 2 (mesiodistal direction) and 3 (P<.001). The time for direct digital workflow was shorter (P<.001), DDW-P being more efficient than DDW-T (P=.008).

CONCLUSION

Direct digital workflow was more accurate and efficient than indirect digital workflow in tested partial edentulism situations with 2 implants.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Tested intraoral scanners can be recommended for accurate and efficient impressions of anterior and posterior 3- or 4-unit implant-supported fixed partial dentures.

Effects of Autoclave Sterilization and Multiple Use on Implant Scanbody Deformation In Vitro

In the intraoral scanner (IOS) impression technique for dental implants, a scanbody (SB) is connected to the implant and scanned. Poly(ether-ether-ketone) (PEEK) is a widely used material for SBs and it is recommended for single use. However, from the perspective of the Sustainable Development Goals, it is desirable to use these products multiple times. As SBs are used in patients' mouths, proper sterilization is necessary for multiple uses. In the present study, the effect of autoclave treatment and connection/disconnection on SB deformation was investigated. The SB was connected to the implant and stereolithography (STL) data were obtained. Then, the SB was disconnected and underwent autoclave treatment, or was connected and disconnected multiple times, or underwent a combination of both processes. The results showed that there were significant differences in the distance and angle when comparing SBs before and after the autoclave treatment, but repeated connections with or without autoclave treatment had no significant impact on the measured values. The surface texture, observed with scanning electron microscopy, showed that a groove was observed on the surface of the SB, but the groove did not show major changes after 10 connection/autoclave processes. These results indicate that autoclave sterilization has some impact on SB deformation but connection/disconnection itself may not have a huge impact on SB deformation.

Clinical assessment of different implant-supported esthetic crown systems fabricated with semi-digital workflow: Two-year prospective study

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical outcome of three esthetic implant-supported crown systems fabricated with semi-digital workflow and their influence on the clinical outcome of dental implants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 30 participants had received dental implants restoring missing maxillary first/second premolars. After 6 weeks, customized zirconia abutments were early loaded. Two months later, the definitive crowns were fabricated using semi-digital workflow and cemented. According to the crown material, 3 groups were randomly allocated; group (Z): ultrahigh-translucent monolithic zirconia, group (C): resin-matrix ceramic and group (P): polyetherketoneketone veneered with light-cured composite resin. Clinical outcomes including the survival and success rates were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months.

RESULTS

The survival rate for all studied groups was 100%, while their success rate was 100% for group (Z) and 90% for group (C) and group (P). Based on the functional implant prosthodontic score, a statistically significant difference was detected between group (Z) and group (P) (p < 0.001) as well as between group (C) and group (P) (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The zirconia group had the most favorable clinical behavior, while the polyetherketoneketone had the least. All crown systems had comparable success rates with similar values of the peri-implant marginal bone loss.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Using semi-digital workflow, ultrahigh-translucent monolithic zirconia, resin-matrix ceramic and polyetherketoneketone veneered with light-cured composite resin can be considered as favorable implant-supported crowns. The implant-supported crown system based on polyetherketoneketone veneered with light-cured composite resin is counted as a promising esthetic and restorative option.

Comparison of the accuracy between conventional and various digital implant impressions for an implant-supported mandibular complete arch fixed prosthesis: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

This in vitro study compared the accuracy between conventional and different intraoral scanner impression methods and stereophotogrammetry term of 3D deviation for a complete mandibular edentulous arch with 5 placed implants.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An edentulous mandibular model was prepared with three straight and two 17° angled screw-retained abutments screwed on implants. Different impression techniques were compared: 1 conventional impression, CO (Open-tray splint impression coping, Polyether), 3 groups of intraoral scanners, TS (Trios 4), IT (iTero Element 2), and PS (Primescan), and 1 Stereophotogrammetry, PIC (Precise Implants Capture). An extraoral scanner (E4 scanner) was used to digitize the reference model as a control group. Scan body positions were compared with 3D deviation by using a 3D analysis software program (Geomagic ControlX 2020.1.1) with the best fit alignment technique. The accuracy of the scan bodies' position of each impression technique between each group area was analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffé's comparison test for trueness and precision. (α = 0.05) RESULTS: Statistical 3D deviations of the whole scan body were found among the CO, TS, PS, IT, and PIC groups for both trueness (p < 0.05) and precision (p < 0.05). PIC showed the least 3D deviation of trueness (48.74 ± 1.80 μm) and precision (5.46 ± 1.10 μm), followed by TS, PS, IT, and CO. CO had the highest 3D deviation of trueness (141 ± 5.58 μm) and precision (40.4 ± 1.3.39 μm), which was significantly different from PIC, TS, and PS.

CONCLUSION

For completed-arch digital implant impressions, a stereophotogrammetry has shown better accuracy than other digital and conventional impression techniques, especially in terms of precision. The highest 3D deviation was found in the conventional splint open tray impression technique. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Impact of Ceramic Material and Preparation Design on Marginal Fit of Endocrown Restorations

Background: The aim of this study is to investigate the impact of ceramic material and preparation design on the marginal fit of endocrown restorations. Methods: Forty endocrown restorations were CAD/CAM-fabricated for forty extracted maxillary first premolar teeth. Samples were divided into two groups (n = 20) according to the ceramic materials used: Celtra Duo and Vita Enamic. Each group was divided into two subgroups (n = 10) according to the preparation design: with no intraradicular extension and with 3 mm intraradicular extension. The marginal gap was examined using a digital microscope. Results: Celtra Duo without intraradicular extension recorded the least mean marginal gap (7.74 ± 1.55 µm), while Group Celtra Duo with 3 mm intraradicular extension recorded the highest mean marginal gap (29.54 ± 6.32 µm). Group Vita Enamic recorded a lesser marginal gap (18.03 ± 12.11 µm) than group CD (Celtra Duo) (18.64 ± 12.05 µm). There is a statistically non-significant difference between the two groups of materials (p = 0.873). There is a statistically significant difference between the two tested preparation designs (p < 0.001). Conclusion: All groups recorded a marginal gap within clinically accepted values. Material selection may influence the fitting of restorations. Intraradicular extension for endocrown restorations adversely affects the marginal fit, however, the marginal gap is still within the clinically accepted range.

Effect of full arch two scanning techniques on the accuracy of overdenture conventional and CAD/CAM Co-Cr bars

This work evaluates the internal and marginal adaptation of implant-assisted overdenture cobalt–chromium (Co–Cr) bars manufactured using conventional as well as CAD/CAM subtractive and selective laser melting (SLM) utilizing two scanning techniques. Methods: An edentulous study model containing four dental implants placed at teeth sites 36, 33, 43, and 46 was used. The study cast was scanned and compared to the virtual casts developed from two scanning techniques, straight and zigzag motion, using the in silico superimposition process. Then, conventional techniques were used to produce full-arch bars that were compared to the bars fabricated using the two scanning techniques and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques. Results: The conventional impression and casting techniques had the smallest marginal gap among the groups (P-value < 0.05). The CAD/CAM subtractive milling techniques in groups II and III had significantly smaller marginal gaps than SLM technique used in groups IV and V (P-value < 0.05). The analysis of the internal gap within each group showed statistically significant differences between different implant sites in all groups (P-value < 0.001), except when using the conventional impression and casting techniques in group I (P-value = 0.20). Conclusion: The conventional impression and fabrication techniques were better than the digital impression and CAD/CAM subtractive and additive techniques for the fabrication of full-arch bars. However, both straight and zigzag scanning techniques and the CAD/CAM subtractive technique had marginal and internal gaps that were within clinically accepted ranges, and the SLM was found to be unsuitable for long-span framework fabrication with either scanning technique used.

In Vitro Comparison of Three Intraoral Scanners for Implant-Supported Dental Prostheses

With continuing technological developments, there have been advances in the field of fixed prosthetics, particularly in impression-taking techniques. These technological advances mean that a wide variety of diagnostic and/or rehabilitation possibilities can be explored without the need for physical models. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of three intraoral scanners used in oral implant rehabilitation using an extraoral scanner as a reference and varying the scanning area. Three models representing different clinical scenarios were scanned 15 times by each intraoral scanner and three times by the extraoral scanner. The readings were analyzed and overlaid using engineering software (Geomagic^® Control X software (Artec Europe, Luxembourg)). Statistically significant differences in accuracy were found between the three intraoral scanners, iTero^® (Align Technology Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), Medit^® (Medit^®: Seoul, Korea), and Planmeca^® (Planmeca^®: Helsinki, Finland). In all clinical scenarios, the iTero^® scanner had the best trueness (24.4 μm), followed by the Medit^® (26.4 μm) and Planmeca^® (42.1 μm). The Medit^® showed the best precision (18.00 μm) followed by the iTero^® (19.20 μm) and Planmeca^® (34.30 μm). We concluded that the iTero^® scanner had the highest reproducibility and accuracy in the clinical setting.

Trueness and precision of combined healing abutment-scan body system depending on the scan pattern and implant location: an in-vitro study

OBJECTIVE

To test the effect of scan pattern and the location of the implant on the trueness and precision of implant scans when the combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system is used.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A partially edentulous maxillary model with CHA-SBs secured on implants at 3 different sites in the left quadrant (central incisor, first premolar, and first molar) was fabricated. The model was scanned with an industrial light scanner to generate a master reference model (MRM) file. An intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3) was used to perform the test scans (n=8) with 4 different scan patterns (SP1, SP2, SP3, and SP4) with an intraoral scanner. The test scans were superimposed over the MRM file with a metrology software to calculate the distance deviations of the CHA-SB system. Data were analyzed with a 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's honestly significant difference tests for accuracy (α=.05).

RESULTS

Trueness (P=.001) and precision (P=.018) were significantly affected by the interaction between the scan pattern and implant location. The implant located at the central incisor site (56.7 ±35.9, 36.2 ±18.6) had higher trueness than that of located at the premolar site (94.1 ±20.4, 100.3 ±20) when SP2 (P=.037) and SP4 (P=.002) were used. The implant at the molar site (71.9 ±25.7, 147.2 ±49.7) had trueness either similar to (when SP2 was used, P≥.276) or lower than (when SP4 was used, P≤.024) those of others. Scans of the central incisor and premolar implants had the lowest trueness when scanned with SP1 (P≤.009), while the scans of molar implant showed higher trueness when performed by using SP2 and SP3 when compared with SP4 (P≤.005). When SP4 was used, the implant at the molar site had lower precision (43 ±18.9) than the implants located at the central incisor (14.1 ±11) and premolar sites (15.4 ±11.3) (P=.002). Scan patterns affected the scan precision of central incisor implant (P=.009), as SP4 (14.1 ±11) led to a higher precision than SP1 (47.7 ±27) (P=.006).

CONCLUSIONS

The scan accuracy of combined healing abutment-scan body system was affected by scan pattern and implant location. SP1, which involved palatal and rotational scans resulted in the lowest trueness for central incisor and premolar implants, while the scans of the central incisor implant showed the highest trueness among different sites when SP4 was used. However, the scan pattern and implant site had a minor effect on precision. Scan precision at different implant sites only differed when SP4 was used, which resulted in the lowest precision for molar implant.

A comparison of trueness and precision of 12 3D printers used in dentistry

Introduction

Judging the dimensional accuracy of the resulting printed part requires comparison and conformity between the 3D printed model and its virtual counterpart. The resolution and accuracy of 3D model samples are determined by a wide array of factors depending on the technology used and related factors such as the print head/laser spot size/screen resolution, build orientation, materials, geometric features, and their topology.

Aims

The aim of this manuscript is to present a literature review on 12 3D printers, namely the Ackuretta Sol, Anycubic Photon and Photon S, Asiga Max UV, Elegoo Mars, Envisiontec Vida HD, Envisiontec One, Envisiontec D4K Pro, Formlabs Form 2 and Form 3, Nextdent 5100, and Planmeca Creo, studying the accuracy of these printers that are of a wide variety of budgets.

Design

The present study involves some of the recently released 3D printers that have not yet been studied for their accuracy. Since these new printers will replace current models that may have been included in the previous studies in the literature, it is important to study whether they are statistically more or less accurate and to discuss whether these results are clinically relevant. For the purposes of this study, the use of a standardised printable object was used to measure the accuracy of these recent 3D printers.

Materials and methods

In total, 12 3D printers produced test blocks. All test blocks were printed using the same settings with 100 micron Z layer thickness and the print time set to standard where applicable. To measure the resulting blocks a digital measurement was taken using a Dentsply Sirona Ineos X5 lab scanner to measure the XYZ dimensions of each block produced on each printer using CloudCompare to measure the deviation compared to the Master STL. Each measurement was taken from the central axis of that dimension.

Results

When grouped into homogenous subsets, the cheapest 3D printers in the group, namely the Anycubic printers and the Elegoo Mars, are statistically not dissimilar to the higher priced Asiga Max UV or even the mid-priced Formlabs printers in the X and Z dimensions. However, the Envisiontec One and D4K Pro, Ackuretta Sol and Asiga Max UV were statistically superior in terms of consistently accurate Y dimension. Although these printers use different technologies to print, no specific type of printer technology is more accurate than the others.

Discussion

The null hypothesis was proved to be true, in that no significant differences were found among the various technologies of 3D printing regarding trueness and precision. The evolution of 3D printers that leads to budget printers being as statistically accurate, for at least two of the dimensions of data recorded, as expensive printers is remarkable. Whilst clear differences in the mean error between the printers were found, the performance of these printers is considered exceptional. Albeit, the Envision One, Envision D4K, Ackuretta Sol and Asiga Max UV printers performed the best with overall trueness under 35 μm.

Conclusion

This study shows that the current range of 3D printers can produce clinically acceptable levels of accuracy. The present study also shows that there is no statistical difference in the results of budget printers and more expensive printers for the X and Z dimensions but this was not the case for the measurements in the Y dimension. This study confirms that all of the 3D printers can produce a reliable, reproducible model.

Digital intraoral scanner devices: a validation study based on common evaluation criteria

Background

The evolution of intraoral scanners (IOSs) is rapid, and new IOSs appear on the market with different properties depending on the manufacturers. There is no uniform rating system based on a defined set of aspects that has reported in the literature that can be used to compare these devices. This validation study aimed to compare different IOSs based on objective and comprehensive parameters.

Methods

In this study, 12 different IOSs were examined. The IOSs that were tested in this study in order of their delivery included the 3Shape Trios 3 Pod®, Planmeca Emerald®, Straumann DWIO®, GC Aadva®, iTero Element 2®, CEREC Primescan®, Medit i500®, 3Shape Trios 4 Move®, Carestream CS3600®, 3Shape Trios 4 Pod®, Carestream CS3700®, and Planmeca Emerald S®. IOSs were evaluated in four different ways: (a)summary chart, (b)comparative assessment, (c)data based on in vitro measurements and (d)accuracy measurements. A scoring system was created to enable an objective rating of IOSs.

Results

The differences among IOSs were demonstrated in point scores (summary chart[max. 10 points] + weight of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + circumference of IOSs[max. 2.5 points] + in vitro scanning time[max. 2.5 points] + pauses in data capture[max. 2.5 points] + accuracy[max. 10 points] = summary[max. 30 points]). Trios 4 Pod achieved the greatest cumulative score (23.37 points), furthermore it earned the highest points for summary chart and scanning speed. Regarding scanning continuity, the best-performing IOSs, which tied at identical point scores, were the Trios 3 and 4 Pod, Trios 4 Move, iTero Element 2, CS3600 and CS3700. The most accurate IOS was the CEREC Primescan, although it earned the lowest points of the comparative assessment (heaviest IOS). GC Aadva scored 5.73 points of a maximum of 30 points, which was the poorest result in this study.

Conclusion

The scoring system reflects the differences among IOS devices based on the evaluated objective parameters and can be used to help clinicians select the right IOS device. The new generations of IOSs have more special properties, and their accuracy is higher than the previous versions.

Trial registration The permission for this study was granted by University Ethics Committee of Semmelweis University (SE RKEB number:108/2019).

Assessing the Effect of Interimplant Distance and Angle on Different Impression Techniques

We aimed to evaluate the trueness of digital and conventional impression techniques based on different angles and distances between implants and the deviation caused by the angle and distance parameters varying between implants. Eight implants were placed in a polyurethane edentulous mandibular model at different angles and distances. After obtaining a 3-dimensional (3D) reference model by using an optical scanner, the model was scanned with three intraoral scanners: Cerec Omnicam (DO), Trios 3 (DT), and Carestream 3500 (DC). Then, the master casts obtained from the conventional impressions (C) were also digitized, and all impression data were imported into reverse engineering software to be compared with the 3D reference model. Distance and angle measurements between adjacent implants were performed, and the data were analyzed with ANOVA–Tukey and Kruskal Wallis tests. The significance level was accepted as p < 0.05. While DT and C groups gave the best results for high interimplant distances, the trueness of intraoral scanners was found to be superior to the conventional method between closer implants. At higher angulations, the angular trueness of C group was found to be significantly lower. At short distances, digital groups showed superiority, and the trueness of conventional impression decreased with higher angulations.

Full Digital Model-Free Maxillary Prosthetic Rehabilitation by Means of One-Piece Implants: A Proof of Concept Clinical Report with Three-Years Follow Up

Implant rehabilitation is a daily practice in dentistry, and patients often have heightened expectations regarding both the functional and the aesthetic outcome. Implant–abutment connection (IAC) is involved in the long-term aesthetic quality of the rehabilitation. The use of one-piece implants for fixing dentures may prevent the mechanical and biological implication of the implant–abutment interface, resulting in a better quality of hard and soft tissue maintenance. In this case report, we present a novel one-piece implant in a maxillary rehabilitation with a full model-free digital approach.

Influence of the implant scan body geometry bevel feature position, implant angulation, and position on intraoral scanning accuracy: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of the scan body geometry bevel position and implant angulation and position of complete-arch implant digital scans.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two definitive casts with 4 implant analogs placed parallel (P group) or angulated up to 30 degrees (NP group) were fabricated. Five subgroups were created based on the scan body geometry bevel position: facial, mesial, distal, lingual, or random (F, M, D, L, and R subgroup). Casts were digitized using a laboratory scanner (reference) (7Series Desktop Scanner) and an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). The implant position discrepancies between the reference and experimental scans were calculated. Data was analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α=.05).

RESULTS

The scan body geometry bevel position (P<.001) and the inter-implant distance (P<.001) were shown as significant predictors of the linear discrepancies obtained. The L subgroup had a significantly lower discrepancy compared with the other subgroups. Implant angulation (P<.001), the scan body geometry bevel position (P<.001), and the inter-implant distance (P<.001) were all significant predictors on the angular discrepancies obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

The scan body geometry bevel feature position and implant angulation and position influenced the accuracy of the IOS tested. The lingual orientation obtained significantly better accuracy values compared with the other positions. The parallel implant analog position obtained better accuracy than the angulated positions. Lastly, the implant positioned in the dental arch where the intraoral digital scan was started obtained significantly higher distortion than the contralateral implant.

Performance of Rigid and Soft Transfer Templates Using Viscous and Fluid Resin-Based Composites in the Attachment Bonding Process of Clear Aligners

Objectives

The study aims at assessing the accuracy of the process of attachment bonding in aligner treatments. The analysis leads to the error estimation in the faithful reproduction of master model attachments using two types of transfer templates and two light-curing resin-based composites usually used in orthodontics.

Methods

The authors have used two transfer templates made of two different materials. The first, named Leone-biocompatible thermoforming material hard/soft, has a lower Young's modulus and is labelled as soft, while the other, named Leone-biocompatible thermoforming material, is marked as rigid. The resin-based composites possess different mechanical and rheological properties. Specifically, Transbond™ XT Light Cure Paste Adhesive, 3M has a higher viscosity than the TetricEvoflow, Ivoclar Vivadent, a flowable nanohybrid composite. The authors attempt to estimate the performance ranking between the four possible couples obtained by combining the two light-curing resin-based composites and transfer templates. Each combination was repeated in six models and compared with twelve master models, resulting in 36 total samples. A 3-D laser scanner is used to generate a digital model of each model. The comparison between digital models is the base for a comparative assessment in terms of relative and absolute error. The relative error is estimated using scalar performance indicators ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the optimum matching. The absolute error estimated from the mean square error between the coordinates of each digital model yields the reproduction accuracy in micrometer. Furthermore, the authors attempted to assess the error distribution by evaluating the point-by-point difference between the digital models.

Results

This analysis aims at localizing the sources of error in the considered models. The use of Transbond™ XT Light Cure Paste Adhesive, 3M with a rigid transfer template is always associated with significant accuracy and minor dispersion. However, in a few instances, using the soft template or the flowable resin-based composite can lead to bad performances. Significance. The data processing bestowed the following performance ranking from the first with lower reproduction error to the last characterized by the worst performance: (1) attachments bonding with rigid template and Transbond™ XT Light Cure Paste Adhesive, 3M, (2) attachments bonding with soft template and Transbond™ XT Light Cure Paste Adhesive, 3M, (3) attachments bonding with rigid template and TetricEvoflow, Ivoclar Vivadent, and (4) attachments bonding with soft template and TetricEvoflow, Ivoclar Vivadent.

In-vitro evaluation of marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated using digital scanning technologies

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal fit of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations that were designed by using the data obtained with the aid of intraoral and laboratory scanners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the fabrication of 3-unit monolithic zirconia restorations using impressions taken from the maxillary master cast, plaster cast was created and scanned in laboratory scanners (InEos X5 and D900L). The main cast was also scanned with different intraoral scanners (Omnicam [OMNI], Primescan [PS], Trios 3 [T3], Trios 4 [T4]) (n = 12 per group). Zirconia fixed partial dentures were virtually designed, produced from presintered block, and subsequently sintered. Marginal and internal discrepancy values (in µm) were measured by using silicone replica method under stereomicroscope. Data were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA and Kruskal Wallis tests (P<.05).

RESULTS

In terms of marginal adaptation, the measurements on the canine tooth indicated better performance with intraoral scanners than those in laboratory scanners, but there was no difference among intraoral scanners (P<.05). In the premolar tooth, PS had the lowest marginal (86.9 ± 19.2 µm) and axial (92.4 ± 14.8 µm), and T4 had the lowest axio-occlusal (89.4 ± 15.6 µm) and occlusal (89.1 ± 13.9 µm) discrepancy value. In both canine and premolar teeth, the D900L was found to be the most marginally and internally inconsistent scanner.

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of the study, marginal and internal discrepancy values were generally lower in intraoral scanners than in laboratory scanners. Marginal discrepancy values of scanners were clinically acceptable (< 120 µm), except D900L.

Effect of posterior span length on the trueness and precision of 3 intraoral digital scanners: A comparative 3-dimensional in vitro study

Purpose

This in vitro study measured and compared 3 intraoral scanners' accuracy (trueness and precision) with different span lengths.

Materials and Methods

Three master casts were prepared to simulate 3 different span lengths (fixed partial dentures with 3, 4, and 5 units). Each master cast was scanned once with an E3 lab scanner and 10 times with each of the 3 intraoral scanners (Trios 3, Planmeca Emerald, and Primescan AC). Data were stored as Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files. The differences between measurements were compared 3-dimensionally using metrology software. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with post hoc analysis by the Tukey honest significant difference test for trueness and precision. Statistical significance was set at P<0.05.

Results

A statistically significant difference was found between the 3 intraoral scanners in trueness and precision (P<0.05). Primescan AC showed the lowest trueness and precision values (36.8 µm and 42.0 µm; (39.4 µm and 51.2 µm; and 54.9 µm and 52.7 µm) followed by Trios 3 (38.9 µm and 53.5 µm; 49.9 µm and 59.1 µm; and 58.1 µm and 64.5 µm) and Planmeca Emerald (60.4 µm and 63.6 µm; 61.3 µm and 69.0 µm; and 70.8 µm and 74.3 µm) for the 3-unit, 4-unit, and 5-unit fixed partial dentures, respectively.

Conclusion

Primescan AC had the best trueness and precision, followed by Trios 3 and Planmeca Emerald. Increasing span length reduced the trueness and precession of the 3 scanners; however, their values were within the accepted successful ranges.

Congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file: an in vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the congruence between the meshes of a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system acquired with four different intraoral scanners and the corresponding library file.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB was fixed to an implant at the right first molar position in a dentate mandibular model and digitized by using 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (OC), Primescan (PS), and Virtuo Vivo (VV)] (n=8) and an industrial grade optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) (n=1) to generate standard tessellation language (STL) files of the test scans (CHA-SB-STLs) and the master reference model scan (MRM-STL). A reverse engineering software (Studio Geomagic X) was used to superimpose the proprietary library file of the CHASB over the generated STL files. Root mean square (RMS) values representing the deviations between the library file and the superimposed STL files were statistically analyzed by using 1-way ANOVA (α=.05). Qualitative analysis of the deviations was performed by visual inspection.

RESULTS

Differences between the congruence of the library file and the CHA-SB scans among different IOSs were nonsignificant (F=1.619, df= 3, P = .207). The single best result was 29 ±28.9 µm for OC, 30.8 ±29.6 µm for VV, 35.6 ±35.5 µm for T3, and 39.5 ±39.2 µm for PS, which were all above the deviation value of the scan performed by using the industrial-grade scanner (23.2 ±23.2 µm).

CONCLUSION

The dimensional congruence between the library file and the standard tessellation language file of the combined healing abutment-scan body system scans was similar when intraoral scanners with different acquisition technologies were used to scan a model with an implant.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Scans of the tested intraoral scanners may result in crowns with similar positional accuracy, given the similarities in congruence of their scans with the library file.

Effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions for implants placed in edentulous maxilla: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

To examine the effect of assistive devices on the precision of digital impression for multiple implants placed in the edentulous maxilla.

METHODS

A reference model representing an edentulous maxilla with four implants was developed. The digital impression group included three settings: Type 0, without an assistive device; Type 1, with an assistive device connecting only neighboring implants; and Type 2, with an assistive device connecting not only neighboring implants but also the two posterior implants, with perpendicular branches from this bar towards the anterior implants. Digital impressions were made five times for each type using three intraoral scanners (IOSs). For conventional method, silicone impressions and verification jigs were prepared; fabricated plaster models were scanned using a laboratory scanner/industrial 3D scanner. In analysis 1, two-way ANOVA analyzed the effect of IOSs and assistive devices on the precision of digital impressions. In analysis 2, one-way ANOVA compared the silicone impressions, the verification jigs, and the most precise group of digital impressions from analysis 1.

RESULTS

In analysis 1, the IOS and assistive device type (F = 25.22, p < .0001) effects and the interaction between these two factors (F = 5.64, p = .0005) were statistically significant. In analysis 2, CON, VJ, and digital impression with Type 2 devices (most precise devices in analysis 1) were compared; better precision was obtained by digital impression with Type 2 device than by CON and VJ (F = 30.08, p < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

For implants placed in an edentulous maxilla, digital impressions with assistive devices can provide better precision compared to silicone impressions and verification jigs.

Accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning, and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation: an in vitro comparative study

Background

To compare the accuracy of photogrammetry, intraoral scanning and conventional impression techniques for complete-arch implant rehabilitation.

Methods

A master cast containing 6 implant abutment replicas was fabricated. Group PG: digital impressions were taken 10 times using a photogrammetry system; Group IOS: intraoral scanning was performed to fabricate 10 digital impressions; Group CNV: splinted open-tray impression technique was used to fabricate 10 definitive casts. The master cast and conventional definitive casts were digitized with a laboratory reference scanner. For all STL files obtained, scan bodies were converted to implant abutment replicas using a digital library. The accuracy of a digitizer was defined by 2 main parameters, trueness and precision. "Trueness" was used to describe the deviation between test files and reference file, and "precision" was used to describe the closeness between test files. Then, the trueness and precision of three impression techniques were evaluated and statistically compared (α = 0.05).

Results

The median trueness was 24.45, 43.45 and 28.70 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate trueness than group IOS (P < 0.001) and group CNV (P = 0.033), group CNV showed more accurate trueness than group IOS (P = 0.033). The median precision was 2.00, 36.00 and 29.40 μm for group PG, IOS and CNV; Group PG gave more accurate precision than group IOS (P < 0.001) and group CNV (P < 0.001), group CNV showed more accurate precision than IOS (P = 0.002).

Conclusions

For complete-arch implant rehabilitation, the photogrammetry system showed the best accuracy of all the impression techniques evaluated, followed by the conventional impression technique, and the intraoral scanner provided the least accuracy.

Improved accuracy of digital implant impressions with newly designed scan bodies: an in vivo evaluation in beagle dogs

Background

The accuracy of digital impressions for fully edentulous cases is currently insufficient for routinely clinical application. To overcome the challenge, a modified scan body was introduced, which demonstrated satisfactory accuracy in vitro. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital impressions using the modified scan bodies with extensional structure versus scan bodies without extensional structure in mandible with two implants in beagle dogs.

Methods

The unilateral mandibular second premolar to second molar were extracted in four beagle dogs. Twelve weeks later, two implants were placed. Five repeated digital impressions were performed with an intraoral scanner on each dog using each of the two different scan bodies: Group I—scan body without extensional structure (SB); Group II—scan body with extensional structure (SBE). The scans were exported to Standard Tessellation Language (STL) files to serve as test data. The dogs were sacrificed and the dissected mandibles were digitalized with a lab scanner to provide reference data. Linear and angular deviations were calculated in an inspection software for accuracy assessment. Statistical analysis was performed with two-way ANOVA. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

For trueness assessment, the mean of absolute linear/angular deviations were 119.53 μm/0.75 degrees in Group I and 68.89 μm/0.36 degrees in Group II. SBE was more accurate than SB regarding both linear (p = 0.008) and angular (p = 0.049) deviations. For precision assessment, the mean of absolute linear/angular deviations were 63.01 μm/0.47 degrees in Group I and 38.38 μm/0.24 degrees in Group II. No significant difference was found.

Conclusions

The application of SBE significantly improved the trueness of digital impressions in mandible with two implants compared to SB. No significant difference was found in terms of precision.

Influence of age and scanning system on the learning curve of experienced and novel intraoral scanner operators: A multi-centric clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of age and intra-oral scanner (IOS) on the learning curve of inexperienced operators.

METHODS

Thirty-four operators pertaining to 1 of 3 groups: (G1) students ≤ 25 years (y), (G2) dentists ≥ 40y, and (G3) a control group of experienced IOS operators (no age limitation), were included. All participants performed baseline and final quadrant scans on a volunteer subject, before and after a training program of 3 sessions, with two different IOS: TRIOS 3 (S1) and True Definition (S2). Baseline and final scanning times were registered in seconds. A Pearson correlation was applied to evaluate the correlation between age and scanning time. An ANOVA of repeated measures test was applied to evaluate inter-group (G1, G2, G3) and inter-system performance. Significance level was set at a = 0.05.

RESULTS

Age and scanning time for inexperienced operators showed a weak positive correlation for final scanning time (r = 0.29, p < 0.05). When comparing groups and filtering by IOS, S1 failed to show differences between groups (p > 0.05). With S2, the control group demonstrated a better performance than G2 (p < 0.05), while G1 only demonstrated a better performance than G2 at final scanning time (p = 0.005). Overall, the type of IOS had a significant impact on the scanning time (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Results from this study indicate that age and type of IOS have an impact on the performance and learning curve of inexperienced IOS operators.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Gaining knowledge on how different aspects, such as age, experience or IOS system, influence the learning curve to IOSs is relevant due to the financial and strategical impact associated with the acquisition of an IOS.

Techniques to improve the accuracy of complete-arch implant intraoral digital scans: A systematic review

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The best method of optimizing the accuracy of complete-arch intraoral digital scans is still unclear. For instance, the location of the scan bodies can be significantly distorted with respect to their actual positions, which would lead to a nonpassive fit of the definitive prosthesis.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review was to analyze available techniques for improving the accuracy of digital scans in implant-supported complete-arch fixed prostheses.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three databases (Medline, Embase, and Google Scholar) were searched, and the results obtained were supplemented by a hand search. Specific descriptors identified techniques whose objective were to increase the accuracy of digital scans in implant-supported complete-arch fixed prostheses. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, and unclear results were discussed with a third independent reviewer. A qualitative analysis based on procedural parameters was used. The interexaminer agreements of both were assessed by the Cohen kappa statistic, and the Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias across the studies.

RESULTS

A total of 17 techniques matching the inclusion criteria were evaluated. Higher accuracy but also differences regarding the need for supplementary devices, number of intraoral scans, and time consumption of clinical and software program steps were observed compared with the conventional digital scanning protocol. The use of a splinting device was common to most of the studies. The outcome variables for the evaluation of the effectiveness of these protocols were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of additional techniques during intraoral scanning can improve accuracy in implant-supported complete-arch fixed prostheses. However, higher complexity for those procedures should be expected.

Effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans using a combined healing abutment-scan body system

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of implant location and operator on the accuracy of implant scans conducted with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A CHA-SB system was fixed on implants at left central incisor, first premolar, and first molar sites in a dentate maxillary model. An industrial optical scanner (ATOS Core 80) was utilized to scan and generate a reference model (RM). The model was scanned by three operators (n = 8) using an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 3). A software (GOM Inspect) was used to superimpose IOS test scans over RM and calculations (distance and angular deviations) were carried out to evaluate the accuracy of the scans. Data were compared with a 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were employed to resolve significant interactions for trueness and precision (α = .05).

RESULTS

Implant location affected the trueness (P ≤ .001) and the precision (P ≤ .020) (distance and angular deviations). The scans of the implant at the central incisor site had the highest trueness (distance and angular deviations) (P ≤ .016). The scans of the implant at molar site had the lowest precision (distance deviation data) (P ≤ .012). The scans of the implant at premolar site had lower precision (angular deviation data) than the scans of the implant at central incisor site (P = .016). Operators' effect on the accuracy of scans was not significant (P ≥  .051).

CONCLUSION

Implant location affected the scan accuracy of the combined healing abutment-scan body system. The scans of the implant at central incisor site had high trueness. The posterior the implant location, the lower was the precision of the scans. The accuracy of scans of different operators was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Higher deviations found in scans of posterior maxilla compared with those in the anterior region may require increased chairside adjustments when crowns are to be fabricated using the scans of the tested healing abutment-scan body system. However, clinical studies are necessary to corroborate the findings.

Accuracy of Implant Level Intraoral Scanning and Photogrammetry Impression Techniques in a Complete Arch with Angled and Parallel Implants: An In Vitro Study

(1) Background: Stereophotogrammetry has recently been investigated showing high accuracy in complete implant supported cases but has scarcely been investigated in cases of tilted implants. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the accuracy of digital impression techniques (intraoral scanning and photogrammetry) at the level of intraoral scan bodies in terms of angular deviations and 3D discrepancies. (2) Methods: A stone master cast representing an edentulous maxilla using four implant analogs was fabricated. The two anterior implants were parallel to each other, and the two posterior implants were at an angulation of 17 degrees. Digital intraoral scanning (DIOS) impressions were taken after connecting implant level scan bodies to the master cast and STL files were exported (n = 15). Digital photogrammetry (DPG) impressions were captured using a PiC Camera after tightening implant level PiC optical markers and STL files were exported (n = 15). Superimposition was carried out by a software for determining the accuracy of both. (3) Results: Significant angular discrepancies (ΔA) and 3D deviations of scan bodies were found among the groups in trueness with lower deviations for the DPG (p value < 0.001). However, trueness within ISBs varied between angular and 3D deviations and outcomes were not specific to determine the effect of implant angulation. In precision, no significant differences were detected within ISBs and among both groups in terms of angular deviation. However, DPG had less deviations than DIOS group in terms of 3D deviations (p value < 0.001). (4) Conclusion: Digital photogrammetry technique conveyed the utmost accuracy in both trueness and precision for the intraoral scan bodies among both impression methods assessed. In addition, implant angulation did not influence the precision of the impression techniques but affected their trueness without explicit conclusions.

Accuracy of 3D Printed and Digital Casts Produced From Intraoral and Extraoral Scanners With Different Scanning Technologies: In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of printed to digital casts produced from various intraoral and extraoral scanners with different scanning technologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A conventional stone cast was fabricated from the reference typodont cast and scanned with two intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3 version 1.4.7.5, and Dental Wings version 2.1.0.421), and two extraoral scanners (S600 Arti, Zirkonzahn, and Ceramill map 600, Amann Girrbach GmbH). All digital scans were saved in the form of STL files and measurements were calculated using Geomagic analysis software. Two types of measurements were assessed on the casts: tooth- and arch-level measurements. Absolute errors were calculated by subtracting the measurements on 3D-printed, digital, and conventional stone casts from the measurements on the reference typodont cast. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing different measurement errors between groups. Linear regression was performed to determine the association between different explanatory variables, and the average measurement errors (dependent variable) adjusted to reference cast measurements. Regression coefficients (B) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.

RESULTS

For both 3D printed, and digital casts, Dental Wings showed significantly greater error compared to other scanners and to the conventional stone cast at all measurements except AL (in the 3D printed modality only), while conventional casts showed the lowest error. Error was significantly higher in intraoral than extraoral scanners (B = 0.009, 95% CI = 0.005, 0.02), and in arch level measurements than tooth level measurements (B = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01, 0.04), and significantly lower in 3D printed than digital casts (B = -0.04, 95% CI = -0.05, -0.04). There were no statistically significant differences between measurement errors of both arches (maxillary and mandibular arches).

CONCLUSIONS

Extraoral scanners showed higher accuracy than intraoral scanners, and 3D-printed casts showed higher accuracy than their digital counterparts. Dental Wings scanner had the greatest measurement error. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Influence of rescanning mesh holes on the accuracy of an intraoral scanner: An in vivo study

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether the cutting-off and rescanning procedures have an impact on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of the intraoral digital scan.

METHODS

A right quadrant digital scan (reference scan) of a participant was obtained using an intraoral scanner (IOS) (TRIOS 4; 3Shape A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark). The reference scan was duplicated 135 times and divided into 3 groups based on the number of rescanned mesh areas: 1 (G1 group), 2 (G2 group), and 3 (G3 group) mesh holes. Each group was subdivided into 3 subgroups depending on the mesh hole diameter: 2 mm- (G1-2, G2-2, and G3-2), 4 mm- (G1-4, G2-4, and G3-4), and 6 mm- (G1-6, G2-6, and G3-6) (n = 15). A software program (Geomagic; 3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) was used to assess the discrepancy between the reference and the experimental scans using the root mean square (RMS). Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc multiple comparison Dunn's tests were used to analyze the data (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Trueness ranged from 5 to 20 µm and precision ranged from 2 to 10 µm. For trueness assessment, Kruskal-Wallis test revealed significant differences on the RMS error values among the groups tested (P<.05). The G3-6 group obtained the lowest trueness and lowest precision values, while the G1-2, G1-4, G2-2, G2-4, and G3-2 groups computed the highest trueness and precision values. When comparing groups with the same number of rescanned mesh holes but with different diameter, the higher the diameter of the rescanned mesh hole, the lower the trueness values computed; however, when comparing groups with the same diameter of the rescanned mesh hole but with differing number of rescanned mesh holes, no significant differences were found in the RMS values among the groups. For the precision evaluation, Levene's test showed a lack of equality of the variances, and therefore of the standard deviations. The F-test with Bonferroni correction identified significant differences between the SDs between group G3-6 and all the other groups. When comparing instead the interquartile range (IQRs) due to the non-normality of the data, groups G1 and G2 also showed lower IQR values or higher precision than groups G3.

CONCLUSIONS

Cutting-off and rescanning procedures decreased the accuracy of the IOS tested. The higher the number and diameter of the rescanned areas, the lower the accuracy.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Cutting-off and rescanning procedures should be minimized in order to increase the accuracy of the IOS evaluated. The intended clinical use of the intraoral digital scan is a critical factor that might determine the scanning workflow procedures.

Effect of Scanner Type and Scan Body Location on the Accuracy of Mandibular Complete-Arch Digital Implant Scans: An In Vitro Study

Purpose

To compare the accuracy (trueness and precision) of scans of a newly introduced intraoral scanner (IOS) (Virtuo Vivo) and a widely used IOS (Trios 3) to a laboratory scanner (LBS) (Cares 7 SERIES) for 6 implants placed in an edentulous mandible, and to investigate the effect of scan body location on trueness.

Material and methods

Scanbodies were tightened on 6 implants placed in an edentulous polymethylmethacrylate mandibular model. An industrial scanner was utilized to generate a master reference model STL file. Three different scanners were used to scan the model (2 IOSs and 1 LBS), and the scans (n = 10) were exported into STL files. Best‐fitting algorithm was used to superimpose test scans over the MRM‐STL (nominal). ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were performed to analyze the data (α = 0.05).

Results

The distance deviations in Car7‐LBS scans were the highest (p < 0.001), whereas those in Tri‐IOS scans were the lowest (p < 0.001). Vir‐IOS had lower angular deviations than those of Tri‐IOS (p = 0.031). In Vir‐IOS scans, SB5 had higher distance deviations than SB2 (p = 0.029) and SB3 (p = 0.044). In Car7‐LBS scans, SB1 had higher distance deviations than SB3 (p = 0.015) and SB5 (p = 0.005). In Tri‐IOS scans, SB1 had higher mean distance deviations than SB2 and SB5 (p = 0.005). Vir‐IOS had lower precision than Car7‐LBS (distance deviation data) (p = 0.01). No difference was found among scanners for the precision of angular deviation data (p = 0.840).

Conclusion

When trueness and precision were considered, distance and angular deviations depended on the scanner type. None of the scanners outperformed others in accuracy considering all distance and angular deviations. Scan body location affected only the trueness (distance deviations).

A review on patient-specific facial and cranial implant design using Artificial Intelligence (AI) techniques

INTRODUCTION

Researchers and engineers have found their importance in healthcare industry including recent updates in patient-specific implant (PSI) design. CAD/CAM technology plays an important role in the design and development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) based implants.The across the globe have their interest focused on the design and manufacturing of AI-based implants in everyday professional use can decrease the cost, improve patient's health and increase efficiency, and thus many implant designers and manufacturers practice.

AREAS COVERED

The focus of this study has been to manufacture smart devices that can make contact with the world as normal people do, understand their language, and learn to improve from real-life examples. Machine learning can be guided using a heavy amount of data sets and algorithms that can improve its ability to learn to perform the task. In this review, artificial intelligence (AI), deep learning, and machine-learning techniques are studied in the design of biomedical implants.

EXPERT OPINION

The main purpose of this article was to highlight important AI techniques to design PSIs. These are the automatic techniques to help designers to design patient-specific implants using AI algorithms such as deep learning, machine learning, and some other automatic methods.

Accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body system and different intraoral scanners: AAn in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the accuracy of single implant scans with a combined healing abutment-scan body (CHA-SB) system using different intraoral scanners.

METHODS

A partially edentulous model with an implant was fabricated, and a CHA-SB system was secured on the implant. The model was scanned using an industrial-grade blue light scanner (ATOS Core 80) and a master reference model was generated (MRM). The model was also scanned with 4 different intraoral scanners (IOSs) [(Virtuo Vivo (VV), TRIOS 3 (T3), Omnicam (CO), and Primescan (PS)]. Test scans (n = 8) were superimposed over the MRM using the best fit algorithm (GOM Inspect 2018; GOM GmbH). After superimpositions, distance and angular deviations at selected areas on CHA-SB system were calculated. The data were analyzed with a 1-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests for trueness and precision (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The differences in trueness (distance deviations) among tested IOSs were nonsignificant (P=.652). VV presented the highest angular deviations (P ≤.031), and the angular deviations in other IOS scans were not found different (P ≥.378). The precision of distance deviation data was not significantly different among scanners (P=.052). For the precision of angular deviation data, significant differences were found among IOSs (P=.002). Compared with PS (P=.007) and T3 (P=.014), VV had significantly lower precision, which was not significantly different than that of CO (P=.815).

CONCLUSIONS

The accuracy (angular deviation) of scans of a combined healing abutment-scan body system on a single implant varied depending on the IOS. VirtuoVivo scans had the lowest accuracy in terms of angular deviations. When the distance deviation data were considered, scan accuracy of scanners was similar.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

A recently introduced combined healing abutment-scan body system combines the acquisition of both the implant and the soft tissue. When different intraoral scanners scan the combined healing abutment-scan body system, the scan accuracy may vary.

Trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by intraoral scanners: a literature review

Background

With the development of intraoral scanners, their trueness and precision have been evaluated in various studies. Through these studies, the amount of accuracy that can be expected from intraoral scanners has gradually been disclosed, at the same time, it was difficult to integrate the results of individual studies due to differences in evaluation methods between studies. The purpose of this article was to review the currently available evidence, summarise what is currently known about IOS, analyse the evaluation methods of each study, and list points to note when interpreting the results.

Main text

Most of the studies were conducted in vitro. The accuracy is evaluated in situations such as single missing teeth, partially edentulous ridges with multiple missing teeth, and fully edentulous jaws. To evaluate the accuracy, direct measurement of distance or angle by coordinate measuring machines and calculation of surface deviation by superimposing surface data were predominantly performed. The influence of parameters such as the number of implants, distance between implants, angle between implants, and experience of the operator was evaluated. Many studies have shown that trueness tends to decrease as the distance between the implants and the scan range increases. It was agreed that the implant angle did not affect either trueness or precision. Regarding other factors, the results varied among studies. Therefore, the effects of these parameters are not clear.

Conclusions

Heterogeneity in the research methodology was prevalent among the studies considered in this review. Therefore, we cannot make a decisive statement regarding the trueness and precision of digital implant impressions by IOSs. So far, the comparison of the numerical values of error between studies has yet to elucidate any clear answers, despite small methodological differences.

A fully digital approach for implant fixed complete dentures: A case report

INTRODUCTIONS

Intraoral scanner has been widely used for implant impression in partially edentulous cases; however, its accuracy in the impression of full-arch implant is still questionable.

CLINICAL REPORT

This clinical report presents a technique to check the accuracy of intraoral scanning for complete-arch implant restorations using an implant index cast (The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms 9th Edition) and a three-dimensional printed cast. A clinical case of immediate loading on a maxillary edentulous patient illustrates the application of an implant index cast in implant fixed complete dentures (IFCDs).

DISCUSSION

The implant index cast was fabricated based on the immediate interim prosthesis and provides effective control of the fit of scanned files and printed models. Therefore, this approach allows a more predictable and accurate fit of the final prosthesis.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

In this article, we present a technique to check the accuracy of the final prosthesis without the need for a conventional impression and final cast in a digital workflow. This proposed approach is demonstrated through a case report of a maxillary edentulous patient restored with immediate loaded IFCDs.

A Comparison of Full Arch Trueness and Precision of Nine Intra-Oral Digital Scanners and Four Lab Digital Scanners

(1) Background: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the full arch scan accuracy (precision and trueness) of nine digital intra-oral scanners and four lab scanners. Previous studies have compared the accuracy of some intra-oral scanners, but as this is a field of quickly developing technologies, a more up-to-date study was needed to assess the capabilities of currently available models. (2) Methods: The present in vitro study compared nine different intra-oral scanners (Omnicam 4.6; Omnicam 5.1; Primescan; CS 3600; Trios 3; Trios 4; Runyes; i500; and DL206) as well as four lab light scanners (Einscan SE; 300e; E2; and Ineos X5) to investigate the accuracy of each scanner by examining the overall trueness and precision. Ten aligned and cut scans from each of the intra-oral and lab scanners in the in vitro study were brought into CloudCompare. A comparison was made with the master STL using the CloudCompare 3D analysis best-fit algorithm. The results were recorded along with individual standard deviation and a colorimetric map of the deviation across the surface of the STL mesh; a comparison was made to the master STL, quantified at specific points. (3) Results: In the present study, the Primescan had the best overall trueness (17.3 ± 4.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the Trios 4 (20.8 ± 6.2), i500 (25.2 ± 7.3), CS3600 (26.9 ± 15.9), Trios 3 (27.7 ± 6.8), Runyes (47.2 ± 5.4), Omnicam 5.1 (55.1 ± 9.5), Omnicam 4.6 (57.5 ± 3.2), and Launca DL206 (58.5 ± 22.0). Regarding the lab light scanners, the Ineos X5 had the best overall trueness with (0.0 ± 1.9), followed by (in order of increasing deviation) the 3Shape E2 (3.6 ± 2.2), Up3D 300E (12.8 ± 2.7), and Einscan SE (14.9 ± 9.5). (4) Conclusions: This study confirms that all current generations of intra-oral digital scanners can capture a reliable, reproducible full arch scan in dentate patients. Out of the intra-oral scanners tested, no scanner produced results significantly similar in trueness to the Ineos X5. However, the Primescan was the only one to be statistically of a similar level of trueness to the 3Shape E2 lab scanner. All scanners in the study had mean trueness of under 60-micron deviation. While this study can compare the scanning accuracy of this sample in a dentate arch, the scanning of a fully edentulous arch is more challenging. The accuracy of these scanners in edentulous cases should be examined in further studies.

Evaluation of the Accuracy of Digital Impressions Obtained from Intraoral and Extraoral Dental Scanners with Different CAD/CAM Scanning Technologies: An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of intraoral and extraoral scanners (IOSs and EOSs) with different scanning technologies.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A phantom cast was used to simulate the patient's mouth. Polyether impression was made of the phantom cast and poured to fabricate stone casts. The stone casts were scanned by two IOSs (3shape Trios 3, 3S and Dental Wings, DW) and two EOSs (S600 Arti Zirkonzahn, ZK and Ceramill map 600 Amann Girrbach, AG) to obtain digital casts. Reference teeth (canines, premolar, and molars) dimensions were measured on the digital casts by Geomagic software and compared to measurements of the stone cast done by stereomicroscope. The dimensions were occluso-cervical mesio-distal, and bucco-lingual and their average was calculated. Differences between digital and stereoscopic measurements were assessed using paired t-test. Discrepancies between these measurements were calculated as differences and were compared among the four scanners using ANOVA.

RESULTS

The differences among the discrepancies of the four scanners were not significant overall (p = 0.969), in premolars (p = 0.932) or molars (p = 0.069) but significant in canines (p = 0.025). The discrepancies of the EOSs were ≤0.01 mm in canines and molars. DW had the greatest discrepancy in canines and molars.

CONCLUSIONS

The IOSs and EOSs had similar accuracy except in canines where EOSs performed better. The accuracy of scanning is affected by the smoothness and regularity of the teeth surfaces as in case of the canine.

Effects of inter-implant distance on the accuracy of intraoral scanner: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

Several studies focused on the accuracy of intra-oral scanners in implant dentistry, but the data of inter-implant distances were not widely mentioned. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effect of distance between two implants on the surface distortion of scanned models generated by intra-oral scanners.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three models with the distances between two fixed scan bodies of 7, 14, and 21 mm were fabricated and scanned with a highly precise D900L dental laboratory scanner as reference models. Fifteen scans were performed with TRIOS3 and CEREC Omnicam intra-oral scanners. Trueness, precision, and angle deviation of the test models were analyzed (α=.05).

RESULTS

There was a significant difference among inter-implant distances in both intraoral scanners (P <.001). The error of trueness and precision increased with the increasing inter-implant length, while the angle deviation did not show the same trend. A significant difference in the angle deviation was found among the inter-implant distance. The greatest angle deviation was reported in the 14-mm group of both scanners (P <.05). In contrast, the lowest angle deviation in the 21-mm group of the TR scanner and the 7-mm of the CR scanner was reported (P <.001).

CONCLUSION

The inter-implant distance affected the accuracy of intra-oral scanner. The error of trueness and precision increased along with the increasing distance between two implants. However, the distortions were not clinically significant. Regarding angle deviation, the clinically significant angle deviation may be possible when using intra-oral scanners in the partially edentulous arch.

The accuracy of single implant scans with a healing abutment-scanpeg system compared with the scans of a scanbody and conventional impressions: An in vitro study

PURPOSE

To compare the accuracy of polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impressions and intraoral scans when a healing abutment-scanpeg system (HASP) or a conventional scanbody (CSB) was used on a single implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A maxillary model with an implant (4.0 × 11 mm) (Neoss) and a CSB or an HASP (Neoss) was scanned by using a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach) (reference scans) and an intraoral scanner (Trios 3) (n = 10). PVS open-tray impressions were also made and stone casts of the model with a CSB were digitized with the laboratory scanner. Intraoral scanner and cast scans were superimposed to their reference scans. On superimposed scans, points were selected on HASP and CSB to calculate distance deviations (at points 1-4) and angular deviations (at points 5 and 6 on CSB and PVS, and 5-8 on HASP) between scans (trueness), and their variation (precision). The deviation data was analyzed with ANOVA and pairwise comparisons (trueness) with Tukey's adjustment, and F-tests (precision).

RESULTS

At point 1, PVS had lower trueness than CSB (difference in means (DIMs) = 0.184 mm, p = 0.006) and HASP (DIMs = 0.122 mm, p = 0.042). At point 3, CSB had higher trueness than HASP (DIMs = 0.134 mm, p = 0.001). Angular deviations with PVS were higher than with CSB (DIMs = 0.6°, p = 0.013) and HASP (DIMs = 0.7°, p = 0.005). CSB had higher precision than PVS (p < 0.05). HASP had higher precision than PVS for distance (Point 1)(p < 0.001) and angular deviations (p < 0.05). Deviation differences within the HASP parts were not significant.

CONCLUSION

The accuracy of intraoral scans and PVS impressions of an implant was similar.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The combined healing abutment-scanpeg system and the conventional scanbody can be recommended for scans of anterior single implants with the intraoral scanner used.

Influence of Liquid on the Tooth Surface on the Accuracy of Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

PURPOSE

To assess the influence of liquid attached on the tooth surfaces on the accuracy (trueness and precision) of intraoral scanners and the effectiveness of the drying method (using compression air) to exclude the influence of liquid on the scanning results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mandibular jaw model was scanned using an industrial computed tomography scanner to obtain a reference model. A scanning platform was designed to simulate three specific tooth surface states (dry, wet, blow-dry). Two kinds of liquids (ultra-pure water and artificial saliva) were used for the test. Two intraoral scanners (Trios 3 and Primescan) were used to scan the mandibular jaw model 10 times under each condition. All scanning data were processed and analyzed using dedicated software (Geomagic Control 2015). Trueness and precision comparison were conducted within the 12 groups of 3D models divided based on different intraoral scanners and liquids used under each condition. The root mean square (RMS) value was used to indicate the difference between the aligned virtual models. The color maps were used to evaluate and observe the deviation distribution patterns. The 3-way ANOVA (condition, intraoral scanner, liquid) followed by the Tukey test were used to assess precision and trueness. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

RESULTS

The mean RMS values obtained from wet condition were significantly higher than those of the dry and blow-dry condition (p < 0.001, F = 64.033 for trueness and F = 54.866 for precision), which indicates less accurate trueness and precision for wet condition. For two different types of liquids, the mean RMS value was not significantly different on trueness and precision. The deviations caused by liquid were positive and mainly distributed in the pits and fissures of the occlusal surface of posterior teeth, the interproximal area of the teeth, and the margin of the abutments.

CONCLUSIONS

Liquid on the tooth surface could affect intraoral scanning accuracy. Blow-drying with a three-way syringe can reduce scanning errors.

Evaluation of complete-arch implant scanning with 5 different intraoral scanners in terms of trueness and operator experience

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The intraoral scanning of the edentulous arch might be challenging for an inexperienced operator because of the large mucosal area and the use of scan bodies.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this ex vivo study was to compare the trueness of 5 intraoral scanners in replicating implant scan bodies and soft tissues in an edentulous maxilla and to investigate the effects of operator experience.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The maxilla was resected from a fresh cadaver, 5 implants placed, and a reference scan made. Eight scans were made by experienced operators and 8 by an inexperienced operator with each scanner (iTero Element 2, Medit i500, Primescan, TRIOS 3, TRIOS 4). The implant platform deviation was measured after complete surface alignment and after scan body alignment. Deviation data were analyzed with a generalized linear mixed model (α=.05).

RESULTS

After complete surface alignment, the mean ±standard deviation implant platform deviation was higher for the inexperienced operator (421 ±25 μm) than for experienced ones (191 ±12 μm, P<.001) for all scanners. After scan body alignment, no significant differences were found between operators for Element 2, Primescan, and TRIOS 3. The experienced operators produced a lower deviation for TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm versus 54 ±3.1 μm, P<.001), but higher deviation for i500 (68 ±4.1 μm versus 57 ±3.6 μm, P<.05). The scanner ranking was Element 2 (63 ±4.1 μm), i500 (57 ±3.6 μm, P=.443), TRIOS 4 (54 ±3.1 μm, P=.591), TRIOS 3 (40 ±3.1 μm, P<.01), Primescan (27 ±1.6 μm, P<.001) for the inexperienced operator and i500 (68 ±4.1 μm), Element 2 (58 ±4.0 μm, P=.141), TRIOS 3 (41 ±2.8 μm, P<.001), TRIOS 4 (35 ±3.3 μm, P=.205), Primescan (28 ±1.8 μm, P=.141) for the experienced operators.

CONCLUSIONS

Mucosal alignment greatly overestimated the platform deviation. The intraoral scanners showed different trueness during the complete-arch implant scanning. The operator experience improved the trueness of the edentulous mucosa but not implant platform deviation.

Reliability of qualitative occlusal tooth wear evaluation using an intraoral scanner: A pilot study

Dental wear analysis through the use of an intraoral scanner is a reality of modern dentistry. This study aimed to investigate the reliability of qualitative tooth wear evaluation through three-dimensional images captured with an intraoral scanner and compared to clinical and photographic examinations. Eighteen adult volunteers of both genders (18 to 55 years old) were submitted to clinical exams, intraoral photographs and intraoral scanning protocol using an optical scanner (TRIOS® Pod, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Occlusal tooth wear, from second to second premolars, was measured by two evaluators and reevaluated after 30 days, according to a slight modification of the method described by Mockers et al. Weighted Kappa was used to measure intra and inter-examiner agreement. The Friedman test was used to verify the differences among methods. Random and systematic errors were assessed using Bland-Altman plots. All statistical analysis was performed with p<0.05. There was a substantive agreement for clinical (K = 0.75) and photographic exams (K = 0.79) and a moderate agreement for intraoral scanner analysis (K = 0.60) for inter-examiner evaluation. A substantial intra-examiner agreement was obtained for both evaluators. No significant difference between the methods was observed (p = 0.7343 for examiner 1 and 0.8007 for examiner 2). The Bland-Altman plot confirmed no systematic errors between the methods and a random error of 0.25 with the scanner method when compared to clinical assessment. All three methods showed reliability in qualitative occlusal tooth wear evaluation. Intraoral scanning seems to be a sound and reliable tool to evaluate tooth wear when compared to traditional methods, considering the lower inter-examiner agreement and the inherent limitations of this pilot study. Further research will be necessary in order to achieve more robust evidence.

The effect of scanned area on the accuracy and time of anterior single implant scans: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of scanned area on the accuracy and scan time of intraoral scans of an anterior implant.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three operators experienced in intraoral scanning (at least 2-year experience) performed partial and complete-arch scans (n = 10) of a dentate resin model with an implant at left central incisor site by using an intraoral scanner (Trios3; 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Each partial- or complete-arch scan was superimposed to a reference scan from a laboratory scanner (Ceramill Map 600; Amann Girrbach AG). Mean distance (selected 7 points) and angular (mesiodistal and buccolingual) scanbody deviations in test scans (trueness) and their variance (precision) were calculated. Linear-regressions (trueness), two-sided F-tests with a Bonferroni correction (precision), and multiple linear regressions (scan time), with the operator as a covariate were applied (alpha = .05).

RESULTS

Interactions were found between the scanned area and the operator for their effect on trueness of all points and angles, except for point 6 at implant-abutment connection in mesiodistal plane (p < .05). No significant difference was found between the precision of partial and complete-arch scans for all operators (p > .05). Partial-arch scan times were significantly shorter, overall, and for each operator (p < .001). No significant effect of scan time was found on the trueness of partial- and complete-arch scans (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Partial and complete-arch scans of anterior single implants with an intraoral scanner resulted in similar accuracies, and were not influenced by the operator or the scan time. Scan times of partial-arch scans were significantly shorter.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Partial-arch scans can be used for the fabrication of monolithic anterior single implant crowns because the scans can be completed in shorter times without compromising the accuracy.

Accuracy of Implant Position Reproduction According to Exposed Length of the Scan Body during Optical Scanning: An In Vitro Study

Accuracy of implant position reproduction according to various types of scanners, implant placement depths, and tooth positions are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of implant position reproduction for differences in the exposed length of the implant scan body according to scanner type and tooth position. Implants were placed at the positions of the lateral incisor, first premolar, and first molar in the study model at the bone level and submerged 1.5 mm, 3.0 mm, 4.5 mm, and 6.0 mm. The completed models were scanned with one type of tabletop scanner and three types of intraoral scanners (TRIOS 3, i500, and CS3600). A matching process was performed for all scan data to superimpose abutment library data on the scan body, and the root mean square errors were analyzed in three dimensions to evaluate the position reproducibility of the replaced abutment library. In the trueness analysis, the error increased rapidly for an implant placement depth of 4.5 mm, and was largest for a submersion of 6.0 mm. The precision analysis confirmed that the error increased for depths of at least 3.0 mm. The analysis by position identified that the accuracy was lowest for an implant placed at the position of the lateral incisor. These findings indicate that special care is required when making an impression of a deep implant with an optical scanner.

Trueness of ten intraoral scanners in determining the positions of simulated implant scan bodies

Few investigations have evaluated the 3-dimensional (3D) accuracy of digital implant scans. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of 10 intraoral scanners (IOSs) (CEREC Omnicam, CEREC Primescan, CS 3600, DWIO, i500, iTero Element, PlanScan, Trios 2, Trios 3, and True Definition) in obtaining the accurate positions of 6 cylinders simulating implant scan bodies. Digital scans of each IOS were compared with the reference dataset obtained by means of a coordinate measuring machine. Deviation from the actual positions of the 6 cylinders along the XYZ axes and the overall 3D deviation of the digital scan were calculated. The type of IOSs and position of simulated cylindrical scan bodies affected the magnitude and direction of deviations on trueness. The lowest amount of deviation was found at the cylinder next to the reference origin, while the highest deviation was evident at the contralateral side for all IOSs (p < 0.001). Among the tested IOSs, the CEREC Primescan and Trios 3 had the highest trueness followed by i500, Trios 2, and iTero Element, albeit not statistically significant (p > 0.05), and the DWIO and PlasScan had the lowest trueness in partially edentulous mandible digital implant scans (p < 0.001).

3D Scanners in Orthodontics-Current Knowledge and Future Perspectives-A Systematic Review

Background: Nowadays the use of intraoral scanners has become a routine practice in orthodontics. It allows the introduction of many treatment innovations. One should consider to what extent intraoral scanners have influenced the everyday orthodontic practice and in what direction should the further research in this field be conducted. This study is aimed to systematically review and synthesize available controlled trials investigating the accuracy and efficacy of intraoral scanners for orthodontic purpose to provide clinically useful information and to direct further research in this field. Methods: A literature search of free text and MeSH terms was performed by using MedLine (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science and Embase. The search engines were used to find studies on application of intraoral scanners in orthodontics (from 1950 to 30 September 2020). The following keywords were used: “intraoral scanners AND efficiency AND accuracy AND orthodontics”. Results: The number of potential identified articles was 71, including 61 from PubMed, two from Scopus, three from Web of Science and five from Embase. After removal of duplicates, 67 full-text articles were analyzed for inclusion criteria, 16 of them were selected and finally included in the qualitative synthesis. Conclusions: There are plenty of data available on accuracy and efficacy of different scanners. Scanners of the same generation from different manufacturers have almost identical accuracy. This is the reason why future similar research will not introduce much to the orthodontics. The challenge for the coming years is to find new applications of digital impressions in the orthodontic practice.